WILL INTERPRETED

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 287, 30 August 1933, Page 10

WILL INTERPRETED

Bequests to Soldiers and Sailors , • SUPREME COURT RULING Interpretation of certain provisions of the will of the late Minnie Elizabeth Simmonds, spinster, formerly of Thames, was given by Mr. Justice Reed, in a reserved judgment delivered yesterday in the Supreme Court. Ihe Public Trustee was named as plaintiff, as administrator of the estate, and Edith Adela Stone, married woman, Thames; Alma Simmonds, spinster, Mount Eden, and Margaret Todd, married woman, Mangere, were named/as defendants, as sister and nieces of deceased respectively. Miss Simmonds died on June 6, 1936, leaving an estate valued at £2409. She bequeathed the sum of £4OO to “the wounded and disabled soldiers of NewZealand,” £lOO to “a home for wounded sailors of the British Empire,” and to her brother, William Simmonds, her two "unmounted greenstone pendants. Certain other institutions and persons were named in tbe residuary gift, but all such-institutions and persons Jpve been ascertained and located. The first question asked was: Is the residue of the estate to be distributed to the beneficiaries named on a pro rata basis according to the amounts expressed in the will to be given them ? In regard to this, his Honour said, there was always a strong presumption against a testator intending an intestacy, and the effect of holding that the several beneficiaries were only entitled to the actual sums mentioned would occasion that' result as regards any balance of moneys over and above the amount required to pay the same, and when in addition to this the words “in the proportions” were used, the meaning of the testatrix was plain. The answer would be “Yes.” In regard to the question; Are the bequests in the will of deceased to "the wounded and disabled'soldiers of New Zealand,” and to “a home for wounded soldiers of the British Empire” of a share in or part of her residuary estate void for uncertainty? his Honour held that the answer would be “No.” The answer to the question, his Honour said, depended on whether the gift constituted a charitable bequest or was a gift to individuals. If the latter, he thought it would be bad for uncertainty. The gift was intended to be a gift for the benefit of the section of the public answering to the description and not a gift to individuals. Both were good charitable gifts, . His Honour directed that the Public Trustee submit a scheme for the disposition of the bequests, It would be necessary that such scheme be submitted for approval to the, AttorneyGeneral as representing the Crown, which, in the case of a gift to charity without the intervention of trustees, became the trustee by virtue of the prerogative as “parens patrias.” His Honour also held that the share or part .in the residuary estate of deceased given in her will to William Simmonds, her brother, which gift had lapsed by reason of his death in her lifetime, was distributable as on an intestacy. . His Honour added that if he had been in any doubt as to the bequests,, being proper charitable gifts, Jie should have required to have heard the Attor-ney-General on the - matter. As a matter of fact, he ought to have been present during the proceedings, because after all he was the person who was intended to protect charities. At the hearing Mr. P. B. Broad appeared for the Public Trustee, Mr. A. T. Young for tbe next-of-kin, Mr. R. P. Smyth for “the wounded and disabled soldiers of New Zealand,” and Mr. F. W. Ongley for "a home for wounded soldiers of the British Empire.”